1999
DOI: 10.1017/s0269889700003501
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trust, Instruments, and Cross-Cultural Scientific Exchanges: Chinese Debate over the Shape of the Earth, 1600–1800

Abstract: The ArgumentThis paper examines the debate in China over the shape of the earth during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The main arguments are as follows. First, trust plays an important role in knowledge transmission. Second, partial communication between different woridviews is possible. In the case of the debate over the shape of the earth, partial communication was accomplished by the spread of Western astronomical instruments and calculating tools. Third, such alien concepts as the four elements … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This does not mean that Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology did not have any impact on Chinese astronomers. In fact, earlier Jesuit scientists generally took a realist attitude toward their astronomical system, as their teacher Christopher Clavius (1537-1612) did, and their success in showing the superiority of Western astronomy's calculation and prediction caused some Chinese astronomers to consider seriously their cosmological bases, even though many others sustained an instrumentalist position (Henderson 1986;Moortgat 1993;Martzloff 1993;Gernet 1993;Chu 1999). 10 As Charles Hucker explains: "It can be argued that civil service recruitment practices in Ming times led to a steady weakening of intellectual curiosity and creativity among the Chinese.…”
Section: The Difference Between Chinese and Jesuit Scientific Traditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This does not mean that Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology did not have any impact on Chinese astronomers. In fact, earlier Jesuit scientists generally took a realist attitude toward their astronomical system, as their teacher Christopher Clavius (1537-1612) did, and their success in showing the superiority of Western astronomy's calculation and prediction caused some Chinese astronomers to consider seriously their cosmological bases, even though many others sustained an instrumentalist position (Henderson 1986;Moortgat 1993;Martzloff 1993;Gernet 1993;Chu 1999). 10 As Charles Hucker explains: "It can be argued that civil service recruitment practices in Ming times led to a steady weakening of intellectual curiosity and creativity among the Chinese.…”
Section: The Difference Between Chinese and Jesuit Scientific Traditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chinese literati could accept the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian system of solid concentric crystalline spheres because it was an effective model for accurate calendar calculation and eclipse prediction, but only a few Chinese literati had shown much interest in Aristotelian metaphysical and ontological ideas. As a consequence, the legitimacy of the sphericity of the earth was reconstructed in a syncretistic environment, where Chinese traditional cosmological theories such as Hun Tian and Gai Tian were involved (Chu 1999). In fact, part of the scientific knowledge introduced by the Jesuits had challenged some metaphysical commitments of the Chinese scientific tradition.…”
Section: Learning From the Westmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El nuevo abordaje académico ha tenido un impacto significativo, al alejarse de una perspectiva que se centraba únicamente en la difusión del conocimiento occidental, en el análisis de los intercambios culturales entre misioneros jesuitas y letrados chinos. Estos encuentros, que en estudios pioneros se analizaron dentro de un esquema de "impacto y respuesta", donde se entendía a los jesuitas como meros transmisores y a los letrados chinos como receptores pasivos del conocimiento occidental, en un contexto marcado por una dicotomía tajante entre Occidente y China, son revisados por nuevas investigaciones desde una óptica que reconoce a ambas partes como productores activos de conocimiento en un contexto de diálogo e intercambio intercultural 14 . Dentro de estas investigaciones, las reflexiones teóricas de Nicolas Standaert y Pingyi Chu revisten especial relevancia en el análisis del proceso de difusión y recepción de conocimientos occidentales en China.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified